Just like you can’t say “well, my armor missed last round, so it’s going to hit this round” you also can’t say “I’ll only get Super Submarines if Japan rolls a 6, I’ll get one of the other 5 if Germany or Italy roll a 6.” It’s an invalid method of calculating probability.

What does this have to do with anything in my post? The ironic thing is, I was explaining this concept to you a few weeks ago. :lol:

In your case, I was joking and you should have known it. After I explained that to you, it clicked, or at least, it seemed too. Funny how you selectively forgot that.

You could have the correct nation and get a 6 but roll one of the other 5 technologies. {1-(1/61/61/3)}
You could have the correct nation, not get a 6, and can’t roll for a technology. {1-(1/61/3)}
You could have the correct nation and get a 6 and roll the correct technology. {1/61/61/3}You could have the wrong nation, get a 6, but roll one of the other 5 technologies. {1-(1/61/62/3)}You could have the wrong nation, not get a 6 and can’t roll for a technology. {1-(1/62/3)}You could have the wrong nation and get a 6 but correct the right technology. {1/61/62/3}

Please explain. If I’m playing the Axis. It’s Japan’s turn. Japan wants Super Subs. How can it be the wrong nation? Japan’s odds of getting Super Subs are:
1/6 to roll a 6 (assuming only 1 tech token)
1/6 to get Super Subs

1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36.

I’m not trying to be annoying, I truly want to know. Because as I see it there is a disconnect from what is mathematically probable and how the game is played. Some variables are known at the time of rolling that I think you’re not accounting for; like who’s turn it is and how many tech tokens are purchased. Again, please explain. Thank you.

Heavy Bombers are powerful, but not game changingly powerful. There are a myriad of ways to negate the power of the heavy bomber.

Super Submarines were way too powerful to give you the ability to get them whenever you wanted them with whoever you wanted them for. There was no way to negate their power.

To defeat a Super Submarine you have to buy a Destroyer.

Super Submarine: Attack 3
Destroyer: Attack 2

Super Submarine: Cost 6
Destroyer: Cost 8

On top of it, just having the destroyer did not even mean you’d be able to kill the submarine! You had to find the blasted thing first and you only have a 33% chance per destroyer to do that.

The way it is in Enhanced is:

Super Destroyer: Attack 3
Submarine: Attack 2

Super Destroyer: Cost 8
Submarine: Cost 6

This is in line with a more balanced game, since the Super Destroyer is only slightly more powerful than the submarine for only slightly higher cost. The Destroyer is unable to pass through enemy ships without being attacked and does not have to be found first before it can be destroyed.

Your allusion to Heavy Bombers has been shown to be not nearly as powerful as the super submarine. A quick run down:

Battleships get to shoot bombers down before they can attack, so there’s a 1 in 6 chance your bomber won’t even get an attack.
Battleships cannot sink submarines before they can attack, so there’s a 6 in 6 chance your submarine will get an attack

Battleships can be upgraded with radar giving them a 1 in 3 chance of shooting down your bomber before it even gets an attack.
Battleships cannot be upgraded to give them a chance to sink an enemy submarine before it gets a chance to attack

A bomber has a chance to sink a battleship in one round if it is a heavy bomber. That chance is 44%. A battleship has a chance to kill a bomber in one round, that chance is 67%.

2 Submarines have a chance to sink a battleship in one round. That chance is 25%. The battleship in that battle would not get a chance to fire back.

So the Bomber can be killed before it gets a chance to attack (and with a 33% chance as well) and only a 44% chance to sink the battleship if it is not shot down in opening fire with a 67% chance of being shot down itself. Cost: 14 IPC with very poor chances of sinking the battleship.

The submarines can kill the battleship without even letting the battleship return fire. Cost: 0 IPC, Gain: 20 IPC. Submarines are WAY better than Heavy Bombers.

If you up that:

7 Submarines with a 21 Punch have a virtual 100% chance to sink a battleship without loss.
3 Bombers will drop to 2 Bombers because of AA Gun fire with a punch of 16 which is virtually assured of killing the battleship, but with the loss of a bomber.

So do you want to lose no equipment, or a third of your equipment?

Most people say no equipment, especially since those submarines can now do 7 CRD to the enemy, the bombers have to survive the AA Gun fire before they can do any damage to the enemy.

They’re just a piss poor investment if you want dominance of the ocean. At least, when you want dominance and can get any tech you want whenever you want.

You could have the correct nation and get a 6 but roll one of the other 5 technologies. {1-(1/61/61/3)}
You could have the correct nation, not get a 6, and can’t roll for a technology. {1-(1/61/3)}
You could have the correct nation and get a 6 and roll the correct technology. {1/61/61/3}You could have the wrong nation, get a 6, but roll one of the other 5 technologies. {1-(1/61/62/3)}You could have the wrong nation, not get a 6 and can’t roll for a technology. {1-(1/62/3)}You could have the wrong nation and get a 6 but correct the right technology. {1/61/62/3}

Please explain. If I’m playing the Axis. It’s Japan’s turn. Japan wants Super Subs. How can it be the wrong nation? Japan’s odds of getting Super Subs are:
1/6 to roll a 6 (assuming only 1 tech token)
1/6 to get Super Subs

1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36.

I’m not trying to be annoying, I truly want to know. Because as I see it there is a disconnect from what is mathematically probable and how the game is played. Some variables are known at the time of rolling that I think you’re not accounting for; like who’s turn it is and how many tech tokens are purchased. Again, please explain. Thank you.

Who is to say that Japan will get the super submarine not the other nations? You can’t just negate their chances.

Let’s put it this way:

You have 1 Super Submarine Tech to give out.

You have 3 Nations looking for Technology with a 1 in 6 chance of getting a technology and a 1 in 6 chance of getting the Super Submarine tech.

Who’s to say that Japan will be the one to get the technology break through and not Italy or Germany? Doesn’t Japan have the same odds as Germany or Italy even if Germany and Italy are hoping for something else on the tech chart? Why are we saying with absolute certainty that Germany and Italy WILL NOT get the super submarines tech because they want something else and Japan will get it if it is gotten at all? That doesn’t make statistical or mathematical sense! Just because Germany and Italy don’t want the technology does not mean they won’t be the ones to get it if it is all random!

Germany has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules
+
Italy has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules
+
Japan has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules

Therefore:

The Axis have a 3/36 (or 1 in 12) chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules

Don’t think that’s valid.

Yes, that’s right. The Axis have a 1/12 chance of one of their nations getting super subs on the first round, with any specific nation having an individual chance of 1/36. However that’s assuming that all three nations select the group of tech that contains Super Subs.

Germany has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules
+
Italy has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules
+
Japan has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules

Therefore:

The Axis have a 3/36 (or 1 in 12) chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules

Don’t think that’s valid.

Well, this is incorrect and not what I was saying anyway.

Technically, you can’t add those probabilities to get 1/12 because they are not mutually exclusive events (although 1/12 is a decent approximation in this case). Germany and Japan could both gets super subs, for example. The correct way to calculate the odds of one or more Axis nations acquiring super subs, if they each roll exactly one die and have no technologies, is to find the odds that none of them get the tech and subtract that from 1:

1 - (35/36)^3 = 8.1%

But we’re not interested in the odds of at least one Axis nation getting super subs. We’re interested in the odds of Japan getting super subs right? Since they are one of the nations you say can “break” the tech.

The odds of any particular nation getting super subs is 1/36. Since one nation acquiring a tech (or failing to acquire one) doesn’t affect the probability of other nations acquiring a tech, they are independent events. Thus, whether Germany or Italy get super subs in no way affects the probability of Japan getting super subs.

Japan can always buy a tech token on their turn. If they do so, they get a 1/6 chance of tech. If they get a tech, they get a 1/6 shot at super subs. That’s 1/36 to get super subs; there are no other random events to account for here.

Don’t make it more complicated than it needs to be: you roll 1 die to get a 6, then 1 die to get a 1… if you do, boom, super subs. 1/36 chance, end of story.

What level “expertise” does the voting people possess that gives them the right to place a vote? There are several people here on the site that may have this expertise. Most of them are listed as people I don’t know up in my disclaimer. I’m assuming that not every person testing has a vote on which rules get enacted/changed/removed.

1) Tech is assured
2) Submarines are really cheap
3) Cruisers are really expensive
4) Submarines have sneak attack abilities
5) Submarines have to be detected before they can be attacked
6) Super submarines turn submarines into cruisers

Conclusion: Super Submarines tech is unbalanced with Enhanced rules.

Remedy: Instead of making Submarines upgradable, make Destroyers upgradable. Cost difference between Revised and Anniversary for the unit is nil; attack power change is nil; destroyers don’t get sneak attacks; destroyers don’t have to be detected before they can be sunk; destroyers are not immune to air power only attacks.

It’s the perfect solution to a blatant and obvious problem.

BadSpeller:

Read all the replies I have given. The answers to your D section of questions are all there.

Are you going to concede that your probability calcs were wrong or not?

Just after you concede your probability calcs are wrong.

You fail to take into account the number of nations AND you fail to take into account the number of rounds. A success could occur on the wrong nation or in the wrong round both of which negate the “success.”

1/36 is valid if you are ONLY considering ONE round for ONE nation. But you cannot do that. That’s like saying you have a 50% chance to hit with the fighter in a battle with 80 units. Yea, so what? It’s not really relevant if the fighter hits, what you want to know is if you’ll WIN and to do that, you need to figure out what the probability is for all of your units to hit and miss and the most likely outcome.

Just like in a mass battle, you need to know what the odds are for Japan to get Super Submarines on Round 3 if one die is purchased. It’s NOT a success if Germany gets it or Italy gets it. It’s NOT a success if you get it on Round 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, …. inf. If that happens, it’s a FAILURE.

(Capitalization used for emphasis.)

For someone who claims to get paid in this you sure seem to have a severe lack of understanding. Either that, or you are REALLY confused as to what is being discussed. No one is talking about the chance that a player discovers a certain technology at any point in the game. We are specifically talking about a single instance where a technology is discovered by the right nation at the right time. That has more parameters than just the odds of getting a 6 on a d6 and then the odds of getting a 1 on a d6. It has to happen only in those scenarios where you are playing the correct nation (1 in 3) and only on that round you need it (1 in 20-25 for some typical games.)

You cannot claim that you “succeeded” in getting Super Submarines in round 20 when the game has evolved to a situation where you no longer have a navy. That’s a failure. You cannot claim that you “succeeded” in getting Super Submarines if you are playing a different nation at the time you make the discovery.

The only time you can claim a success is when you get super submarines with the nation you need it for in the round you need it. So you absolutely MUST account for the chance you are playing the wrong nation and you must account for the chance that it is not yet, or no longer, the round you need the technology.

Just like in a mass battle, you need to know what the odds are for Japan to get Super Submarines on Round 3 if one die is purchased. It’s NOT a success if Germany gets it or Italy gets it. It’s NOT a success if you get it on Round 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, …. inf. If that happens, it’s a FAILURE.

Let me get this right. You’re saying that if Japan will need Super Subs on Round 3 because of the strategy they are attempting but they get them in rounds 1 or 2 its a failure?@Cmdr_Jennifer:

Because as I see it there is a disconnect from what is mathematically probable and how the game is played.

So if I have to account for the probability that Germany or Italy will get Super Subs (SS) instead of Japan (according to your calculations), then the probability of Japan getting them on Round 3 would change if both Germany and Italy already have them? So if by luck/chance/stupidity (whatever you want to call it) Germany gets SS on G1 and Italy gets SS in I1, then the probability that Japan would get SS on J3 is 1/6 * 1/6 * 3/3 = 1/36? Because I could no longer be playing the wrong nation; both other Axis nations already have SS.

OK, I’ll take one last crack at explaining this to you Jen. I know you don’t like me, but please try to actually listen to what I’m saying this time. And hopefully this post doesn’t get deleted. :roll:

Suppose I flip a coin. What are the odds it comes up heads? Well, I hope we can agree that its 1/2.

Now, suppose I flip a coin on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. What are the odds of the coin coming up heads on Friday?

Thus far you have reasoned like this: the odds of the coin coming up heads is 1/2, but we must also take into account what day of the week it is. There is only 1 “correct” day of the week (Friday) in which a coin gets flipped, while there are 2 “incorrect” days (Monday, and Wednesday). So there is only a 1/3 chance of it being Friday when the coin is flipped. Therefore, the odds that the coin comes up heads on Friday is (1/2)*(1/3) = 1/6.

Correct?

No. Here’s why:

What you’re trying to do is find the joint probability of two events using conditional probabilities. The problem is, you have the conditional backwards. See, we’re not deciding whether to flip a coin, and then assigning the result of the flip randomly to a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday. So we don’t want to know the probability of it being Friday, given that the coin is flipped. Instead, we’re seeing what day of the week it is, and then determining if the coin gets flipped or not based on whether or not it’s a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday. Thus, we want to know the probability of flipping a coin, given that it is Friday.

Of course, the probability of flipping a coin, given that it is Friday is equal to 1, since it’s stipulated that a coin always gets flipped on a Friday. So, the joint probability of flipping a coin on friday and flipping heads is: (1)*(1/2) = 1/2.

Do you see the difference? And do you see that you’re making the same mistake when calculating the odds of getting super subs?

We don’t want to know the odds of it being the “correct” nation, given that super subs has been discovered, we want to know the odds of super subs being discovered, given that it’s the “correct” nation.

Yes, if your strategy is to get the submarines on round 13 and you instead get them on round 11 or 12, this is a failure.

Why?

If you get them too early, you might not be able to trap your opponent. In other words, he might slip out of the trap before you are ready to spring it.

But that’s easy to fix, just don’t roll on rounds 11 and 12.

The more serious problem is:

If you need it on round 13 and you get it on round 17 after all your submarines are sunk.

That’s why you have to factor in the rounds into your chances. It’s more than “getting the tech” it’s getting the tech at an opportune time to use it.

I see what you are saying Unknown.

Does your rational work if you need that coin to come up heads on a specific day in a specific week and a specific month - keeping in mind, that once you get a head you can no longer get a head. Remember, this is not sampling with replacement, once you get a tech, you cannot get it again. (not to mention, as I mentioned above, getting it too early or too late can really screw up your entire plan by either not having the units anymore or showing your hand too early.)

All these things come into play.

And:

That’s exactly the nice thing about Enhanced. You don’t have any of those worries anymore. (Which is what made SS too powerful, which, come to think of it, I think OOB should be changed to make SS be SD just to bring the tech back in line.)

Does your rational work if you need that coin to come up heads on a specific day in a specific week and a specific month - keeping in mind, that once you get a head you can no longer get a head. Remember, this is not sampling with replacement, once you get a tech, you cannot get it again.

Well, admittedly the coin analogy does break down when we start talking about tech rolls over multiple rounds, because, as you say, you can’t roll the same tech twice while you can flip heads on a future Friday even if you did the first time. I just wanted to illustrate the problem (i.e. the backwards conditional) in the simplest way I could think of.

What’s crucial is how the question is framed. Do we want to know, for example:

If we’re talking about the first thing, then all we really need to know is how many tech rolls Japan bought that turn, and what techs they already have (if any). Very straight forward to calculate, and the actual turn number is irrelevant. However, if we’re talking about the second thing, the turn number does matter, as does how many tech rolls Japan will purchase on each of the turns leading up to turn x. This question is much harder to answer. We’d end up with a probability distribution for the chance of acquiring super subs over the turns 1 through x, with the probability increasing over time due to more and more tech rolls and the possibility of other techs being acquired as you go. I think perhaps this is what you were getting at.

However, all that said, one thing we can say for sure is that the probability of getting super subs for any nation will never be more than 1/36, since this is the worst case scenario where no techs have been discovered and only one roll is purchased. Thus 1/108 simply has to be wrong.

That’s exactly the nice thing about Enhanced. You don’t have any of those worries anymore. (Which is what made SS too powerful, which, come to think of it, I think OOB should be changed to make SS be SD just to bring the tech back in line.)

Well, I see your point about how these long-shot odds can break the game, and I agree with you. After all, that’s the point I was trying to make in that thread which got derailed and turned into a discussion of OOB tech rules.

Where we disagree is what alternative should be implemented. I feel that delaying tech rolls until the “place units” phase is the best approach, since it very cleanly strips away the “surprise!” element, which is the mechanism that break the game imo. Also, this approach is a relatively minor change to the rules, when compared to entirely new tech systems like the one you are proposing.

I understand that you think directed tech is more strategic, because you should be able to anticipate which techs your opponent will try for on their turn (if you’re paying attention :P). I just think that directed, guaranteed tech is a real can of worms to unleash on a game that, at this point, is very far from being solved. The fact that you felt it necessary to get rid of super subs because of this is huge red flag to me, indicating that there are likely many other avenues to break the game that you haven’t though of yet. That’s why I was on your case about the playtesting, I’m really not trying to be an ass.

This alternate ruleset is an enhancement of AAR and was developed at the AvalonHill boards. It’s main goal is to optimize the strategic experience of the game utilizing National Advantages, and to reduce repetitive play (same KGF all the time). The game developed itself through more than 3 years of playtesting by the AARe team and finally reached its goals.

Cmdr Jennifer, can you tell us again how long you did testing on your version of the rule-set?

@Cmdr:

Most of the dev team were gamers who live in Northern Illinois. After the rudiments were put in place, we had a month of online gamers testing it from the four major gaming sites that I know of: DAAK, FOE, AAMC and here. (Note: DAAK players invited were from personal invites since I lost my PW to the DAAK site, actually, it’s been so long since I’ve been there, I dont even know if it is still online or not.)

And you can still make this statement?

@Cmdr:

So far we, the game developers who adapted the AARe rules to fit in the AA50 rules and map, feel the current rule set is as strong or stronger than the AARe rules were/are.

Suggested Topics

As you stated this injects some random invariability. Instead of the linear games some randomness is provided. This isn’t supposed to be reality. If you want that just watch the “World at War” series from the BBC circa 1970’s. It’s just supposed to be fun. That’s all. Play test and give suggestions to improve.

@bugoo:
As far as tech goes I would propose a point system. Assign a point value to each tech. Purchase researchers as normal. Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech. You could assign different researches to different techs, but cannot change the tech they work on once purchased. Once point value is reached, tech is gained said researchers are lost. For example.
As US I want heavy bombers eventually, they are worth 30 research, so on turn 1 I purchase one heavy bomber researcher. I roll and get a 3. Now I need 27 more research to get heavy bombers. On turn 2 I decide I want super subs, and since that tech isn’t as powerful I only need 15 research to get them. I purchase 2 researchers, both for the subs as I want to sink japan’s navy now. I roll a 2 for my heavy bomber researcher, leaving 25 left, and then roll a 4 and a 5 for my subs, leaving 6 left and with any luck on turn 3 i’ll get my super subs.
This will allow you to slowly work at a tech, rush for it, and choose to go for the good but expensive techs, or take an easier, faster, tech, or all of the above. Now all nations may buy a heavy bomber researcher turn 1, but hey there is nothing wrong with that!
Hello. I am digging up this as the tech lovers/haters discussions have started to heat up.
I re-read your thoughts and am wondering if you ever did anything more with this idea of a tech pointing system. Did you ever come up with point targets for each tech?
The neat thing about this is that it can be easily tweaked with out re-writing the whole process.
Or you could go one step further and adjust the targets by country too. For example, make super subs very low (read affordable) for Russian super subs or something like that, or even harder for the wealthy countries (like extra points for USA for Long Range)

I am looking for contact with Cousin Joe and Axis Roll. I am looking for the XML used to create the AARe module for MapView. Laso I want to let you guys know that AARe has been getting played by a small group of players for quite a long time

I think Persia might be the optimal play for the Allies under these rules – you can easily reinforce it from Stalingrad, and you can push either east to India or west to Egypt as needed. Persia’s usually not worth a factory in OOB play because it would only have 1 production slot, but with 2 production slots in Persia at the start of the game, you could really swing the center of the board toward the Allies.
Anybody want to test this out by e-mail? I’ll take the Allies with a factory and AAA in a modified Persia that’s worth 2 IPCs and has 2 production slots for as long as I can hold it. I wouldn’t ask for any further bid; that sounds like plenty to me.

For those of you who love Enhanced, now is the time to prove your skill in a tournament over at AAMC.
We need two more players or the tourney will be cancelled.
sign up here:
http://aamc.net/bunker/forumsql/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1641
Thanks and good gaming!

Let me clarify my reasoning on point number 2:
Submarines defend at a zero because they are not firing back, they are battening the hatches, flooding the ballast tanks and adjusting the dive planes hoping to get below depth charge depth before being sunk. (Which is silly, I guess you should say destroyed not sunk, since they sink on purpose…)
Meanwhile, they attack at three because they quietly slip into range, hide in the waves, line up their shot just right and fire. Since there is resistance to giving them called shot abilities (where they tell us who they aim for before firing, like Kaitens and Kamikazees did in AARe) I figure this is a solution that would work.
Also, it should be mentioned that I am assuming Super Submarines has been changed to Super Destroyers which would increase Destroyer Attack Power = to Submarine Power.
Submarines do not defend with a surface fleet, they travel solo usually way out ahead as scouts or raiding enemy shipping. Treat them like transports if they are detected and defenseless.

Ok Here it goes
@Black_Elk:
On a more serious note though, this discussion about Navies, while fascinating, is still beside the point.
I mean, you don’t honestly think that the unit numbers in the game, have anything to do with the real world numbers do you? If so, again I would ask, who can’t point to where the numbers are coming from?
They are hazzy abstractions, just like the IPC values are hazzy abstractions, and the problem right now, is that the abstracted numbers we’ve been using have failed to produce a two front war.
Who cares about all the other stuff if we can’t even get a two front war going? What difference does it make if the IPC and unit ratios are accurate to Nth degree, if that’s just going to produce an unbalanced game?
You see what I’m driving at here…
Believe me, I’m just as in favor of historical realism as the next guy, but I think we’ve been approaching the issue in a backwards sort of way. You have to start with the gameplay, and understand what players are actual doing with these rules and conditions we’ve set up, before you can even begin to ask questions like “are the numbers accurate to the real world?” The first priority has to be given to the gameplay mechanics, and setting them up in such a way that the Japanese and Americans actually have a reason to fight over the Pacific. If you don’t do that first, then relative accuracy with all the other stuff is pretty much pointless, because the basic game still won’t look anything like the real War.
Any thoughts?
I totally agree with this because there should be a reason to fight in the pacific (for both sides) I think if making each island 1 and isladns that get taken often 2 then there would be a reason for japan to defend them and usa to attack them.
Anyways many of the game is historical but some things had to change for unblanced reasons so that way the axis have a chance that gives them a shot. Though i beleive that the numbers in the game are very accurate to how the real war went except the german army had more tanks and the russian army had more infantry. The part of how U.S.A. and Great Britian, are both pretty weak is because it is the truth great britian was on its knees and the u.s.a army was not even a real army (no offence it was not made for offensive just defensive)